On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tomaz Canabrava <[email protected]> wrote: > juk should be a lightweigth music player, while amarok should be an > all-featured media player. I say should because juk is in a stage > where it's not lightweigth, for the code there needs much love. that > said, juk is part of KDE software, while Amarok does not follow the > KDE rules to be part of the official package. ( same release dates for > instance ) > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Lydia Pintscher >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 03:15, Michael Pyne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 08, 2011 18:44:40 Tomaz Canabrava wrote: >>>>> Juk is an easy target, and in need of love. >>>> >>>> Honestly I was going to recommend the same thing. >>>> >>>> I don't agree that it's (all) easy (although there is certainly a lot of >>>> "low- >>>> hanging fruit"), but it does have the advantage that I'm at least >>>> available by >>>> email to help guide/mentor. >>>> >>>> In addition I will be completing school very soon, which hopefully should >>>> add >>>> some time per day (although that may be offset by the new job I will be >>>> rotating to soon which will probably involve a longer commute). >>>> >>>> Either way, JuK could use some love, there's still someone mostly-active >>>> who >>>> can show interested parties around the codebase and I should have piped in >>>> on >>>> one of these requests awhile ago (but I've always assumed someone else has >>>> need the help more ;( ) >>> >>> Thanks guys. I've suggested him to take a look at JuK. >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Lydia >>> >>> -- >>> Lydia Pintscher >>> KDE Community Working Group member >>> http://kde.org - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher >>> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just wondering, but why is there Amorok and JuK? Surely Amarok can do >> everything JuK can right? >> JuK even looks "a bit" like Amarok. >> No pun intended! >> >> Thanx, >> Mark >> >
Ah oke. Just some idea i have now.. Right now someone is working on a Phonon QML thing. Wouldn't it be best for JuK to be (mostly) rewritten using the phonon QML thing? I mean, KDE 5 seems to be going towards QML, Dolphin seems to go in that direction and Dragon 3 is already using QML : http://apachelog.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/dragon-player-3/ Just some random thought.. And how do i even need to see YuK? As a foobar alternative for KDE? Thanx, Mark
